pith. sign in

arxiv: 2411.10989 · v4 · submitted 2024-11-17 · ⚛️ nucl-th · nucl-ex

Fragmentation of Nuclear Remnants in Electron-Nucleus Collisions at High Energy as a Nonextensive Process

Ting-Ting Duan , Sahanaa B\"uriechin , Hai-Ling Lao , Fu-Hu Liu , Khusniddin K. Olimov This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 17:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th nucl-ex
keywords nuclear fragmentationTsallis statisticsmultiplicity distributionselectron-nucleus collisionsnonextensive processesnuclear remnantspartitioning methodsalpha clusters
0
0 comments X

The pith

Fragmentation of nuclear remnants in high-energy electron-nucleus collisions is a nonextensive process governed by Tsallis statistics.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that multiplicity distributions of nuclear fragments from excited remnants such as 9Be*, 12C*, and 16O* in electron-nucleus collisions follow the form predicted by Tsallis nonextensive statistics. It derives these distributions using equal- and unequal-probability partitioning methods that omit alpha-cluster assumptions. A sympathetic reader would conclude that the underlying fragmentation dynamics cannot be captured by conventional extensive thermodynamics, because the fitted q-parameter deviates from unity and yields a nonextensive temperature and entropy index. This matters because it supplies a concrete statistical signature that could be checked against measured fragment yields in eA experiments.

Core claim

Using a partitioning method based on equal or unequal probabilities without alpha clusters, the authors generate topological configurations and predict multiplicity distributions of nuclear fragments with given charge Z for the excited nuclei 9Be*, 12C*, and 16O*. Fitting these distributions inside the Tsallis framework produces a nonextensive generalized temperature, an entropy index q, and a q-entropy; the authors conclude that the fragmentation of nuclear remnants in high-energy electron-nucleus collisions is therefore a nonextensive process.

What carries the argument

Tsallis statistics applied to multiplicity distributions generated by equal/unequal-probability partitioning of nuclear fragments.

If this is right

  • Alpha-cluster structure produces measurable deviations only in the Z=2 fragment yields relative to the partitioning predictions.
  • A nonextensive temperature and entropy index can be extracted for each excited remnant nucleus from its fragment multiplicity distribution.
  • The same nonextensive description applies across the three nuclei examined once the partitioning method is used.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the nonextensive character persists in other collision systems, fragment yields in heavy-ion runs could be re-analyzed with the same Tsallis fitting procedure.
  • The partitioning approach supplies a baseline that isolates the effect of alpha clustering on observed Z=2 yields.

Load-bearing premise

The multiplicity distributions produced by the equal- and unequal-probability partitioning methods accurately represent the physical fragmentation process even though alpha-cluster structure is omitted.

What would settle it

Direct measurement of fragment multiplicity distributions in electron-nucleus collisions that fail to fit a Tsallis form with q different from 1.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10989 by Fu-Hu Liu, Hai-Ling Lao, Khusniddin K. Olimov, Sahanaa B\"uriechin, Ting-Ting Duan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Multiplicity distributions of nuclear fragments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Multiplicity distributions of nuclear fragments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Multiplicity distributions of nuclear fragments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Utilizing a partitioning method based on equal (or unequal) probabilities -- without incorporating the alpha-cluster ($\alpha$-cluster) model -- allows for the derivation of diverse topological configurations of nuclear fragments resulting from fragmentation. Subsequently, we predict the multiplicity distribution of nuclear fragments for specific excited nuclei, such as $^9$Be$^*$, $^{12}$C$^*$, and $^{16}$O$^*$, which can be formed as nuclear remnants in electron-nucleus ($eA$) collisions at high energy. Based on the $\alpha$-cluster model, an $\alpha$-cluster structure may result in deviations in the multiplicity distributions of nuclear fragments with charge $Z=2$, compared to those predicted by the partitioning methods. Furthermore, in the framework of Tsallis statistics, the nonextensive generalized temperature, entropy index, and $q$-entropy are obtained from the multiplicity distribution of nuclear fragments with given charge number. Our work shows that fragmentation of nuclear remnants in electron-nucleus collisions at high energy is a nonextensive process.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that fragmentation of nuclear remnants in high-energy electron-nucleus collisions is a nonextensive process. It derives fragment multiplicity distributions for excited nuclei 9Be*, 12C*, and 16O* via equal- and unequal-probability partitioning (without alpha clusters), then applies Tsallis statistics to extract the entropy index q, generalized temperature T_q, and q-entropy from those distributions, concluding nonextensivity on the basis of q ≠ 1.

Significance. If the combinatorial distributions were shown to faithfully represent physical eA fragmentation, the Tsallis analysis would offer a concrete example of nonextensive statistics in nuclear breakup. The work supplies explicit multiplicity distributions from a well-defined partitioning procedure, which could serve as a benchmark for statistical models, but the absence of any dynamical link or data comparison limits its significance for understanding real collision processes.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the nuclei 'can be formed as nuclear remnants in eA collisions' and that the fragmentation 'is a nonextensive process' is unsupported; the multiplicity distributions are generated purely combinatorially with no dynamical simulation of eA scattering, no comparison to measured fragment yields, and no benchmark against statistical multifragmentation or transport models.
  2. [Results (multiplicity distributions and Tsallis fits)] Results (multiplicity distributions and Tsallis fits): the extraction of q, T_q, and q-entropy is performed directly on the partitioning-derived distributions; because the model is non-uniform by construction, q ≠ 1 follows from the choice of Tsallis framework rather than from any test showing that q = 1 fails to describe physical data.
  3. [Discussion] Discussion: the statement that an alpha-cluster structure 'may result in deviations' for Z = 2 fragments is asserted without quantitative comparison of the partitioning distributions to any alpha-cluster calculation or to experimental fragment multiplicities.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Clarify in the methods section how the 'unequal probability' partitioning assigns probabilities to partitions and whether any normalization or cutoff is applied.
  2. [Figures] Figures displaying multiplicity distributions should include axis labels with explicit charge or mass ranges and, if applicable, indicate whether the plotted values are normalized probabilities or raw counts.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed review and for identifying points where the scope and claims of the manuscript require clarification. The work is a purely theoretical combinatorial study that derives multiplicity distributions from partitioning and then applies Tsallis statistics; it does not perform dynamical simulations of eA collisions or compare to data. We address each major comment below and indicate where revisions will be made to better reflect the manuscript's limited scope.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the nuclei 'can be formed as nuclear remnants in eA collisions' and that the fragmentation 'is a nonextensive process' is unsupported; the multiplicity distributions are generated purely combinatorially with no dynamical simulation of eA scattering, no comparison to measured fragment yields, and no benchmark against statistical multifragmentation or transport models.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract overstates the connection to real eA collisions. The phrasing 'can be formed as nuclear remnants' is intended only to motivate the choice of 9Be*, 12C*, and 16O* as illustrative cases, not to assert that the model reproduces eA dynamics. The conclusion that fragmentation 'is a nonextensive process' is strictly within the combinatorial partitioning framework and the subsequent Tsallis analysis; no claim is made that the same q values describe experimental data. We will revise the abstract to state explicitly that the study is a theoretical exploration of nonextensivity via partitioning-derived distributions and that no dynamical simulation or data comparison is performed. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results (multiplicity distributions and Tsallis fits)] Results (multiplicity distributions and Tsallis fits): the extraction of q, T_q, and q-entropy is performed directly on the partitioning-derived distributions; because the model is non-uniform by construction, q ≠ 1 follows from the choice of Tsallis framework rather than from any test showing that q = 1 fails to describe physical data.

    Authors: The referee is correct that q ≠ 1 is a direct consequence of applying the Tsallis formalism to the non-uniform multiplicity distributions generated by the unequal-probability partitioning. The manuscript does not test whether Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics fail to describe experimental fragment yields; it only shows that the combinatorial model yields q > 1 when analyzed with Tsallis statistics. This is presented as an illustration that such partitioning processes are nonextensive by construction, providing explicit benchmark distributions rather than a claim about real collision data. No revision is required on this point, as the text already limits the conclusion to the model under study. revision: no

  3. Referee: [Discussion] Discussion: the statement that an alpha-cluster structure 'may result in deviations' for Z = 2 fragments is asserted without quantitative comparison of the partitioning distributions to any alpha-cluster calculation or to experimental fragment multiplicities.

    Authors: The statement is qualitative and is offered only as a possible physical effect that could modify the Z = 2 yields relative to the pure partitioning results. No quantitative alpha-cluster calculation or experimental comparison is provided in the manuscript, and the referee correctly notes this absence. We will revise the sentence to read 'An alpha-cluster structure could in principle produce deviations...' and add a reference to existing alpha-cluster literature, while making clear that no such calculation is performed here. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • The absence of any dynamical simulation of eA scattering or direct comparison to measured fragment multiplicities, which would require an entirely separate modeling effort beyond the combinatorial scope of the present work.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Nonextensivity shown by fitting Tsallis q to partitioning-derived multiplicity distributions

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "in the framework of Tsallis statistics, the nonextensive generalized temperature, entropy index, and q-entropy are obtained from the multiplicity distribution of nuclear fragments with given charge number. Our work shows that fragmentation of nuclear remnants in electron-nucleus collisions at high energy is a nonextensive process."

    Multiplicity distributions are first derived via the paper's partitioning method (equal/unequal probabilities, no α-clusters). Tsallis parameters including q are then fitted to these distributions; the conclusion of nonextensivity is obtained because q ≠ 1. The result is therefore equivalent to the choice of applying the nonextensive framework to the model's own output.

full rationale

The paper generates multiplicity distributions for nuclear fragments using an equal/unequal-probability partitioning method on excited nuclei, then applies the Tsallis framework to extract q, temperature, and entropy from those same distributions. The central claim that fragmentation 'is a nonextensive process' follows directly from obtaining q ≠ 1. This constitutes a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern: the distributions are the model's own combinatorial output, and the nonextensivity conclusion is the expected result of choosing the nonextensive statistics, without independent dynamical validation or experimental comparison. No self-citations or uniqueness theorems are invoked in the provided text. The derivation chain therefore contains partial circularity at the step linking the fit to the physical-process claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two fitted quantities (q and generalized temperature) extracted from distributions generated by the partitioning rule, plus the domain assumption that Tsallis statistics is the appropriate description.

free parameters (2)
  • q (entropy index)
    Fitted to the multiplicity distribution of fragments with given charge to quantify nonextensivity.
  • generalized temperature T_q
    Extracted alongside q from the same multiplicity data.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Tsallis nonextensive statistics applies to the multiplicity distributions of nuclear fragments
    Invoked to obtain q-entropy and generalized temperature from the partitioning-derived distributions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5735 in / 1330 out tokens · 33162 ms · 2026-05-23T17:00:04.897007+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Ahmed, T

    A. Ahmed, T. Biswas, N. Subba, S. Paul, A. N. Tawfik, M. Kala m, D. Ghosh, and P. Kr. Haldar, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 33, 2450022 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Gharaei, S

    R. Gharaei, S. R. Sani, and H. A. R. Aliabad, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 39, 2450137 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Olimov, O

    K. Olimov, O. Esanmurodov, Kh. K. Olimov, S. Kholbutaev, and B. S. Yuldashev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 32, 2350051 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Bhattacharjee and P

    S. Bhattacharjee and P. Kr. Haldar, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 39, 2430003 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Wang, Mod

    J. Wang, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 39, 2430001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    V. V. Lugovoi, Kh. K. Olimov, K. G. Gulamov, K. Olimov, B. A . Sindarov, and A. K. Olimov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 32, 2350039 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    A. A. Zaitsev, Phys. Part. Nuclei 55, 751 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    A. A. Zaitsev and P. I. Zarubin, Phys. Atom. Nuclei 82, 1225 (2019)

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    BECQUEREL project, http://becquerel.jinr.ru/, Nov. 2 024

    work page

  10. [10]

    Barbui, A

    M. Barbui, A. Volya, E. Aboud, S. Ahn, J. Bishop, V. Z. Gol dberg, J. Hooker, C. H. Hunt, H. Jayatissa, Tz. Kokalova et al., Phys. Rev. C 106, 054310 (2022)

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Ohkubo, J

    S. Ohkubo, J. Takahashi, and Y. Yamanaka, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2020, 041D01 (2020)

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Bai and Z

    D. Bai and Z. Z. Ren, Chin. Phys. C 42), 124102 (2018)

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Soi´ c, M

    N. Soi´ c, M. Freer, L. Donadille, N. M. Clarke, P. J. Leas k, W. N. Catford, K. L. Jones, D. Mahboub, B. R. Fulton, B. J. Greenhalgh et al., Nucl. Phys. A 728, 12 (2003)

    work page 2003

  14. [14]

    Funaki, H

    Y. Funaki, H. Horiuchi, G. R¨ opke, P. Schuck, A. Tohsaki , and T. Yamada, Phys. Rev. C 77, 064312 (2008)

    work page 2008

  15. [15]

    T. Myo, A. Umeya, K. Horii, H. Toki, and K. Ikeda, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2014, 033D01 (2014)

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    Bijker, EPJ Web Conf

    R. Bijker, EPJ Web Conf. 93, 01011 (2015)

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    Funaki, T

    Y. Funaki, T. Yamada, E. Hiyama, B. Zhou, and K. Ikeda, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2014, 133D01 (2014)

    work page 2014

  18. [18]

    S. I. Fedotov, O. I. Kartavtsev, V. I. Kochkin, and A. V. M alykh, Phys. Rev. C 70, 014006 (2004)

    work page 2004

  19. [19]

    J. A. Maruhn, M. Kimura, S. Schramm, P.-G. Reinhard, H. H oriuchi, and A. Tohsaki, Phys. Rev. C 74, 044311 (2006)

    work page 2006

  20. [20]

    M. A. Souza and H. Miyake, Phys. Rev. C 91, 034320 (2015)

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    Yamada and Y

    T. Yamada and Y. Funaki, Phys. Rev. C 92, 034326 (2015)

    work page 2015

  22. [22]

    Does the alpha cluster structure in light nuclei persist through the fusion process?

    J. Vadas, T. K. Steinbach, J. Schmidt, V. Singh, C. Haycr aft, S, Hudan, R. T. deSouza, L. T. Baby, S. A. Kuvin, and I. Wiedenh¨ over,arXiv:1508.07824 [nucl-ex] (2015)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  23. [23]

    S. I. Fedotov, O. I. Kartavtsev, A. V. Malykh, Eur. Phys. J. A 26, 201 (2005)

    work page 2005

  24. [24]

    G. K. Nie, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 22, 227 (2007)

    work page 2007

  25. [25]

    G. K. Nie, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 19, 1205 (2010)

    work page 2010

  26. [26]

    Sosin, J

    Z. Sosin, J. B/suppress locki, J. Kallunkathariyil, J. /suppress Lukasik, and P. Paw/suppress lowski,Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 120 (2016)

    work page 2016

  27. [27]

    Stellin, L

    G. Stellin, L. Fortunato, and A. Vitturi, J. Phys. G 43, 085104 (2016)

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    X. W. Tang and P. Y. Zheng, High Energy Phys. Nucl. Phys. (successor Chin. Phys. C) 12, 455 (1988). 12

    work page 1988

  29. [29]

    P. Y. Zheng, S. R. Sun, and X. W. Tang, Chin. Sci. Bull. 33, 660 (1988)

    work page 1988

  30. [30]

    P. Y. Zheng and X. W. Tang, Chin. Sci. Bull. 33, 573 (1988)

    work page 1988

  31. [31]

    D. H. Zhang, J. F. Sun, and P. Y. Zheng, Atomic Energy Sci. Tech. 24, 49 (1990)

    work page 1990

  32. [32]

    Magdy, M

    N. Magdy, M. Hegazy, A. Rafaat, W. L. Li, A. Deshpande, A. M. H. Abdelhady, A. Y. Ellithi, R. A. Lacey, and Z. D. M. Tu, Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 212 (2024)

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    F. H. Liu and J. S. Li, Phys. Rev. C 78, 044602 (2008)

    work page 2008

  34. [34]

    Misiejuk, Z

    A. Misiejuk, Z. Papandreou, E. Voutier, Th. S. Bauer, H. P. Blok, D. J. Boersma, H. W. den Bok, E. E. W. Bruins, F. Farzanpay, K. Gr¨ uner et al.,Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 172501 (2002)

    work page 2002

  35. [35]

    Wesseling, C

    J. Wesseling, C. W. de Jager, L. Lapik´ as, H. de Vries, M. N. Harakeh, N. Kalantar-Nayestanaki, L. W. Fagg, R. A. Lindgren, and D. Van Neck, Nucl. Phys. A 547, 519 (1992)

    work page 1992

  36. [36]

    R. A. Khalek, A. Accardi, J. Adam, D. Adamiak, W. Akers, M . Albaladejo, A. Al-bataineh, M. G. Alexeev, F. Ameli, P. Antonioli et al., Nucl. Phys. A 1026, 122447 (2022)

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    Chang, E.-C

    W. Chang, E.-C. Aschenauer, M. D. Baker, A. Jentsch, J.- H. Lee, Z. D. M. Tu, Z. B. Yin, and L. Zheng, Phys. Rev. D 106, 012007 (2022)

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    The ePIC Collaboration, https://www.epic-eic.org/p ublic/detector.html, Nov. 2024

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    A. Z. Mekjian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2125 (1990)

    work page 1990

  40. [40]

    A. Z. Mekjian, Phys. Rev. C 41, 2103 (1990)

    work page 1990

  41. [41]

    Campi, J

    X. Campi, J. Phys. A 19, L917 (1986)

    work page 1986

  42. [42]

    Campi, Phys

    X. Campi, Phys. Lett. B 208, 351 (1988)

    work page 1988

  43. [43]

    H. M. Liu, B. H. Sa, Y. M. Zheng, Z. D. Lu, and X. Z. Zhang, High Energy Phys. Nucl. Phys. (successor Chin. Phys. C) 15, 1053 (1991)

    work page 1991

  44. [44]

    F. H. Liu and Yu. A. Panebratsev, Phys. Rev. C 59, 941 (1999)

    work page 1999

  45. [45]

    F. H. Liu, Nuovo Cimento A (successor Eur. Phys. J. A) 110, 1361 (1997)

    work page 1997

  46. [46]

    H. E. Stanley, Introduction to Phase Transition and Critical Phenomena (Oxford University Press, Oxford), 1971

    work page 1971

  47. [47]

    Stauffer, Phys

    D. Stauffer, Phys. Rep. 54, 1 (1979)

    work page 1979

  48. [48]

    S. Y. Bahk, S. D. Chang, B. G. Cheon, J. H. Cho, H. I. Jang, C . H. Hahn, T. Hara, G. Y. Lim, J. S. Kang, C. O. Kim et al., Phys. Rev. C 43, 1410 (1991)

    work page 1991

  49. [49]

    Singh, K

    G. Singh, K. Sengupta, and P. L. Jain, Phys. Rev. C 41, 999 (1990)

    work page 1990

  50. [50]

    A. A. Zaitsev, D. A. Artemenkov, V. Bradnova, P. I. Zarub in, I. G. Zarubina, R. R. Kattabekov, N. K. Kornegrutsa, K. Z. Mamatkulov, E. K. Mitsova, A. Neagu et al., Phys. Part. Nuclei 48, 960 (2017)

    work page 2017

  51. [51]

    D. O. Krivenkov, D. A. Artemenkov, V. Bradnova, S. Vok´ a l, P. I. Zarubin, I. G. Zarubina, N. V. Kondratieva, A. I. Malakhov, A. A. Moiseenko, G. I. Orlova et al., Phys. Atom. Nuclei 73, 2103 (2010)

    work page 2010

  52. [52]

    K. Z. Mamatkulov, R. R. Kattabekov, S. S. Alikulov, D. A. Artemenkov, R. N. Bekmirzaev, V. Bradnova, P. I. Zarubin, I. G. Zarubina, N. V. Kondratieva, D. O. Krivenkov et al., Phys. Atom. Nuclei 76, 1224 (2013)

    work page 2013

  53. [53]

    D. A. Artemenkov, V. Bradnova, A. A. Zaitsev, P. I. Zarub in, I. G. Zarubina, R. R. Kattabekov, N. K. Kornegrutsa, K. Z. Mamatkulov, P. A. Rukoyatkin, V. V. Rusakova et al., Phys. Atom. Nuclei 78, 794 (2015)

    work page 2015

  54. [54]

    N. P. Andreeva, V. Bradnova, S. Vokal, A. Vokalova, A. Sh . Gaitinov, S. G. Gerasimov, L. A. Goncharova, V. A. Dronov, P. I. Zarubin, I. G. Zarubina et al., Phys. Atom. Nuclei 68, 455 (2005). 13

    work page 2005